Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations

and a contribution from Offshore Europe

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

professionals to serve as lecturers

Additional ssupport
pport pro
provided
ided b
by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl 1
 Fracturing for Sand Control: How
Hydraulic Fracturing has Changed
S d Control
Sand C t l

Raymond Tibbles
Schlumberger Oilfield Services

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
2
 Sand Control Goal

• The big three goals of Sand Control

– Stop/minimize production of formation solids
– Maximize
M i i production
d ti rate/
t / minimizing
i i i i
impairment
– Maintain performance over well life
• Has fracturing improved our ability to
d li
delivered
d these
th goals.
l AAnd
d can it continue
ti
to do so in the future?

3
 Main SC Completion
p Types
yp
• Non Frac
– Cased Hole Gravel Pack (CHGP)
– Open Hole Gravel Pack (OHGP)
– Stand
St d Alone
Al Screen
S (SAS)
– Formation Consolidation
• Fracturing
F t i
– Screenless Frac Pack
– High
Hi h R
Rate t W
Water
t P Pack
k (HRWP)
– Frac Pack
– Frac
F followed
f ll db
by Expandable
E d bl S
Screen
4
 Screenless Frac Pack Completions
Indirect Vertical Indirect Vertical Optimized Perforating
Fracture Fracture + and Fracturing
Intelligent W or WO Resin
Perforating Consolidation
Weak

Competent

Weak Propped Weak

Layer Fracture
Propped Competent
Fracture
Competent Weak
Layer Competent

Main Pass 41
Piltun-Asstokhsky Jauf Reservoir
Saudi Arabia SPE 107440
Sakhalin
SPE 73724 Yegua Formation
SPE 68638 5
SPE 96289
 HRWP Completions
• Application
– Wells where height
growth is a concern
– Equipment for frac Sandstone
pack is not available
• Multiple pad/slurry
stages create short
fractures.
6
 Frac Pack Completions
• Application: Most if not all
cased hole completions
• Single
g Stageg of fracturingg
fluid (pad) followed by
multiple slurry stages
(
(ramped d prop conc.)) with
ith Sandstone
tip screenout design.
• Key design requirement is
a wide highly conductive
f t
fracture.
7
Does Exceeding
g Frac Pressure
Make a Difference?

8
 Fracturing
g Improves
p Reliabilityy
9
8
ar x 100)
ell Life
e

7
6
5
Failurres/We
es/yea

4
3
2
(failure

1
0
(

9
Data courtesy of George King (June 2003)
Fracturing
actu g Improves
p o es Production
oduct o
120% Reference
IPTC 11166
# Wells
4
Frac p
pack SPE 103779
SPE 110359
8
2
100%
ve Probability

Gravel Pack SPE 111455

SPE 30093
1
17
HRWP SPE 30115
SPE 30470
7
36
80% SPE 31475 17
SPE 36423 12
SPE 36459 8
60% SPE 38592 10
SPE 39478 10
SPE 63107 4
SPE 68753 25
40% SPE 73722 35
mulativ

SPE 77434 6
SPE 78322 4
20% SPE 84259
SPE 86530
10
1
SPE 87199 31
Cum

SPE 96307 7
0% Grand Total 255

0% 50% 100% 150% 200%

Flow Efficiency

10
 5000 bopd
Chance to get
3000 bopd?
p

24.8% max 6600 bopd

50.2% max of 8400 bopd

11
37.3% max of 6600 bopd
 Causes of Low Productivity in
G
Gravell Packs
P k
• Low gravel permeability in the perforation
tunnels.
– Crushed zone;
– Gravel/sand mixing;
– Post-perforating
P t f ti fluid
fl id lloss pills
ill
• Fines migration over time

12
 Reality of Packed Perforations
Ideal Perforations The Cold Hard Truth

A
B A
C B
C

13
Region A Region B Region C
Region A Region B Region C
 Fines Migration in a Gravel Pack
(data supplied by NS Operator)
8 14
7 12
6
PI (blpd/psi)

10
5
8

Skin
n
4
6
3
2 PI (bl
(blpd/psi)
d/ i) 4
1 Skin Factor 2
0 0
0 200 400 600
Time (days)
50% of the PI is lost in the first year.
(26 lb/ft gravel) 14
What Does Fracturing
g Do To Help?
p

• Ensures that the critical area of the

perforation tunnel is full of clean gravel
free of formation sand or debris Î High
perm gravel in perfs
• Increases
I the
th reservoir
i contact
t t area.
– Decreases fluid velocityy in the reservoir Î
Reduced tendency for fines migration

15
 Fracturing Puts More Gravel
Th
Through hP
Perforations
f ti
• G
Generally
ll accepted
t d iindustry
d t value
l ffor
gravel packing perforations: 25 lb/ft of
perforations.
f ti
• One NS Operator
p HRWP Avg:
g 112 lb/ft
of perforations.
• S
Same NS O Operator
t Frac
F Pack
P k Avg:
A 516
lb/ft of perforations

16
 Fracturing Increases Reservoir
Contact
Gravel Pack 3 ft Half 30 ft Half
Length Frac Length Frac

200 ft2 1100 ft2 11000 ft2

82% Reduction 98% Reduction
In Sand Face In Sand Face
Velocity Velocity
H = 92 feet
Rw = 8.5 inch
Perf diameter = 0.83 inch
Shot density = 21 spf 17
More Area Means No Fines Migration
elocity (ftt/sec)

0.00050
GP
HRWP
0.00040
Frac Pack
Fines
0.00030
Form Fluid Ve

0.00020

0 00010
0.00010

0.00000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Flow Rate (blpd)

• Every formation has a different critical fines movement

velocity. This is one case where it was 0.00029 ft/sec 18
 Impact of Gravel Volume
( il wellll case iin a llow bh
(oil bhp reservoir)
i)
malized PI (blpd/psi/ft)

0.35
HRWP
0.3
Frac Pack
0.25
Frac & Pack
02
0.2
Linear (Frac Pack)
0.15
0.1
Norm

0.05
0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
lbs gravel placed/ft of perforations

For this e
example
ample there appears to be a link
between gravel mass and Normalized PI. This is 19
not always the case.
Better Understanding is Improving Results
(SPE 71658 Morales et al)

• Near wellbore temperature cool down from

injection of pre-frac and frac-pack fluids.

300 12000
280 1st Calib 2nd Calib 10000
260
Acid
240 8000
BHT ( OF )

BHP (psi)
220
6000
200
180 190oF 4000
160
2000
140
120 0
1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Time (min)
20
Temperature cool down inside the fracture
(after Sinclair)

1
T − Ti 90%
0.8
TD =
Tr − Ti
0.6 70%
10%
TD

0.4 50% 30%

20%
0.2
5%
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/L
21
 New Techniques – Fluid Selection
• Cool-Down
C lD B
Basedd Fl
Fluid
id 300 12000
Selection 280
1st Calib 2nd Calib 10000
260
– Improved success 240 8000

OF )
Acid

BH
rate of achieving Tip

BHT ( O

HP (psi)
220
6000
Screenout (TSO) 200 190 F
o

180 4000
– Allows optimization 160
2000
of p
polymer
y and 140
120 0
breaker loading
1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Time (min)

Bottom hole temperature profile during treatment –

70 Fluid Designed at 190O F
MMCFD)

60 Conventional
50 Cool Down Technique
40
Rate (M

30
20
10
0
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3*
Well 22
*Tubing Limited
 Facing Up To The Challenges?
• Unwanted adjacent water and gas
• Brown fields/depleted reservoirs
• High permeability formations
• Thicker zones ( > 500 ft) w/ Multi-lobes
Multi lobes
• Emerging area deep water.
• UltraDeep water
– Deeper
– Absence
Ab off stress
t barriers
b i
– Higher Pressure
– Higher Temperature
23
Is Fracturing Out of Zone Really a Problem?

• Soft rocks and standard design

limits height growth.
– Low Young’s Modulus
– TSO inhibits growth
– Low efficiency frac fluids.
• Proper precautions minimize even
severe risk.
(SPE 73776 Guichard et al.)
al )

• SPE 85259 deals with one of the

mostt difficult
diffi lt cases.
24
 Height Control in Unfavorable Case

Limit the
Perforate the
perforation
p
whole zone
height and
Frac out of
control the
zone
fracture height

SPE 95987
8 ft shale with water below
S
Small frac
f pad Tracer Log
Small slurry stage 25
Fracture did not break through the shale
 Fracs Deliver in Brown Fields

• Well Data • Treatment Data

– Casing: 5 inch – Fluid: 30 lb borate xlink
– Deviation: 33 deg – Gravel: 16/20 LWC
– KH 5100 md-ft
KH: d ft – Placed:
Pl d 1243 lbs/ft
lb /ft
– Depth:7550 ft • Results
– BHST: 200 F – Produced
P d d via
i ESP
– Perforation: – Post FP PI/Pre FP PI: 1.04
• Density: 24 spf
– Post FP Skin: -0
0.5
5

26
 High Permeability Concerns

• SPE39475: limit frac packs

p
– Oil Kf < 900 md
– Gas Kf < 150 md.
– OH GP for the highest
g rate wells
• SPE 111455: Frac Packs are the best
solution for high permeability formation
if the wellbore is properly aligned with
the fracture
fracture.
27
 Cased Hole Frac-Packs
Frac Packs

Openhole Horizontal
or
Openhole Frac-Pack
or
Openhole
p GP Above
Frac Pressure?

Transmisibility (kh) 1000 mD-ft

Oilfield Review,
Review Summer 2001 (BP,
(BP Chevron,
Chevron EniAgip,
EniAgip MM-II,
Repsol-YPF, Schlumberger, Shell, Stone Energy, Texaco)
28
 High
g Rate Limitions
– Pressure Loss in Perforation tunnel (Forchheimer)
2
0.888 L μ Q ⎡Q ⎤
ΔP = + 9.1×10 β L ρ ⎢ ⎥
13

KA ⎣ A⎦
Where:
A = Perf Cross-Sectional Area (Ft2) 90º 10º 0º
B = Inertia Coefficient (Ft-1)
∆P = Differential Pressure (psi)
K = Permeability (Darcies)
L = Length Of Perforation (ft)
μ = Viscosity (Centipoise)
Q = Flow Rate (B/D)
ρ = Density Of Fluid (lb/Ft3)
 High Rate Gas Skin (SPE 68753)
400
Sd HRWP
350
• Avg Damage Skin 300 Sd FP

e Skin
(
(Deviation and Partial completion
p 250

Damage
200
skins removed)
150
– All Cases 100
50
• FP = 18 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
• HRWP = 55* Permeability (mD)

eff
– Less than 1 Darcy 1

• FP = 18 Ratte Dependent Skin Coe 0.1

CFD)
• HRWP = 31*
31
(1/MSC
0.01

*Neglected 800 Skin 0.001

D HRWP
D Frac Pack

0.0001
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
30 5000
Permeability (mD)
 Frac Packs Can Deliver High
Production Rate Completions
• Gas
– SPE106854 BP Trinidad and Tobago:
• FP 75-150 MM/day (100 – 600 mD)
• OH GP: 72 – 320 MM/day (100 – 1700 mD)
• Oil
– SPE 78322 Total Angola:
g
• FP 15,000 – 25,000 bopd (800-2700 mD)
– SPE 84415 ConocoPhillips USA:
• FP two wells 22
22,400
400 bopd/well
– FP Non documented GOM – 40,000 bopd
– SPE 48977 BP North Sea:
• OH Horizontal – 30,000 bopd
31
 Other Options in Emerging Deep
Water
• Rig Based Fracturing
– Dependent on available deck space
– Inhibits many rig operations
– Limited rates and volumes
• Supply Boat Based Fracturing
– Limited Rates and Volume but more flexibility
– Minimum impact on rig operations

32
 Modular Supply Vessel Operation
(900m2 deck area)

• 650,000 lbm of proppant • 200,000 gals batch mixed gel

• 10 000 psii MWP
10,000 stored below deck
• 40 BPM max rate • Connected to Rig via 4” 10,000 psi
• 9,000 HHP Coflexip hose c/w EQD on TR12
Reel

33
 Lower Tertiary - Miocene and Paleogene

Water Depth 4 – 10,000 ft

> 1500 ft

TVD 15,000 ft – 33, 000 ft

BHP 13 ppg – 15.2 ppg
34
BHT 160 OF – 310 ºF
 Challenges and Solutions
• Temperature: No problem we have fluids
to handle 400+ degrees F.
• High Pressure:
– 20000 psi treating equipment - does the market
justify the cost?
Δp 2fρV 2
– High density frac fluids to help but there are =
limits. SPE 116007 reported surface pressure L D
reductions from 22 to 39% with an average
surface pressure reduction of 34%

• T
Temperature
t andd Pressure:
P Still struggling
t li
to provide a high density fluid that can
work at 325+ ºF

35
 Facing Up To The Challenges?
• Unwanted adjacent water and gas
• Brown
Bro n fields/depleted reser
reservoirs
oirs
• High permeability formation
– Gas
– Oil
• Emerging Area Deep Water
• UltraDeep
p Water Plays
y
– Deeper
– Higher Pressure
– Higher Temperature 36
 Conclusions
• Sand Control fracturing completions have clearly
shown increased productivity in many different
environments.
• Many of the challenges to using fracturing have already
been overcome
– Unwanted water/gas
– High permeability formations
– Application in developing areas
• Some challenges
g still require work or may
y not be
applicable
– Ultra high permeability (especially in gas wells)
– High pressure especially in combination with temperature
above 325 F
37
Questions?

38
Your Feedback is Important
p
Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by
completing the evaluation form for this presentation or
go online at:

http://www.spe.org/events/dl/dl_evaluation_contest.php

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl 39